New Denim

A. M’S DEPARTURE AND ITS INTERNAL RAMIFICATIONS

WHILE M’S DEPARTURE FROM THE LINEAR NARRATIVE MAY SEEM LIKE A SINGLE DECISION TO AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER, IT IS ACTUALLY THE RESULT OF A COMPLEX INTERPLAY OF MULTIFACETED AND INTERTWINED INTERNAL SHIFTS IN PERCEPTION. THE PHILOSOPHICAL RIFT HE EXPERIENCED ALONG THE WAY GOES BEYOND A SIMPLE MATTER OF AUTHORITY OR STATUS; THIS INEXPLICABLE TRANSITION IS THE RESULT OF THE INTERPLAY OF ACCUMULATED TENSIONS AND FRAGMENTED INTERNAL ELEMENTS, A MULTI-LAYERED HIERARCHY THAT APPEARS SPONTANEOUS ON THE SURFACE, BUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNDERLYING COGNITIVE STRUCTURES CAN NEVER BE INTEGRATED. HIS DEPARTURE IS THEREFORE NOT A SIMPLE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT, BUT THE AFTERMATH OF INVISIBLE VIBRATIONS IN A MULTI-LAYERED TEMPORALITY AND NESTED COGNITIVE REALITY.

THE MOMENT OF HIS DEPARTURE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN A PHYSICAL OR POLITICAL CONTEXT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT RIPPLES ARE NON-LINEAR EVENTS THAT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED BY LINGUISTIC STRUCTURES. THE ESSENCE OF THE EVENT IS INDEFINABLE AND OPEN TO MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS AND DIMENSIONS, AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS BOIL DOWN TO A SYMBOLIC TRANSITION THAT GOES BEYOND THE OUTWARD ASPECT OF THE ACT OF M’S DEPARTURE. IT IS NOT A SIMPLE DEPARTURE, BUT RATHER THE EXTERNAL MANIFESTATION OF A SERIES OF TANGLED INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS.

B. WHO’S BEHIND B AND HIS STRATEGIC ROLE

CONTRARY TO APPEARANCES, MR. B’S ENTITY IS NOT A SYMBOL OF PERSONAL AMBITION AND PHYSICAL INFLUENCE. HIS ACTIONS ARE NEVER REDUCIBLE TO THE OUTCOME OF SURFACE EVENTS, AND HIS GOALS ARE DRIVEN BY A SUBTLE SUPERPOSITION OF INTERSECTING MULTIDIMENSIONAL ENTITIES. HOWEVER, THIS SUPERPOSITION IS NEVER SINGLE-DIRECTIONAL, BUT RATHER A CUNNING INTERWEAVING OF DIFFERENT FORCES, EACH OF WHICH FORMS A SELF-SUSTAINING STRUCTURE IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

MANY OF THE STRATEGIC MOVES HE APPEARS TO HAVE ENGINEERED ARE IN FACT NOT BASED ON INDEPENDENT AGENCY, BUT ONLY ACQUIRE MEANING AS PART OF A LARGER STRUCTURE. THE MECHANISMS ADOPTED BY B DO NOT GUARANTEE ORIGINALITY, BUT MERELY REORGANIZE PATTERNS THAT HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SUPERIMPOSED ON PAST CORPORATE NARRATIVES. HIS CHOSEN APPROACH HERE IS NOT A NEW CREATIVE TURN, BUT A SUBTLE VARIATION ON AN ALREADY EXISTING STRUCTURE.

HIS PLAN APPEARS HIGHLY CALCULATED ON THE SURFACE, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A LIMITED SENSORY FRAMEWORK TO DETECT THAT ITS INNER COMPLEXITY IS DERIVED FROM A HIGHER STRUCTURE. WHILE B’S MOVES CLEARLY OPERATE ON A CERTAIN FOUNDATION, THERE ARE INVISIBLE MECHANISMS AT WORK BEHIND THE SCENES THAT GOVERN HIS ACTIONS, WHICH MANIFEST AS A THOROUGHLY NON-LINEAR AND INTERDEPENDENT COLLISION OF FORCES. IN THE END, THE MOVES HE APPEARS TO BE LEADING ARE NOT INDEPENDENT IN THEMSELVES, BUT PART OF A LARGER FLOW OF INVISIBLE FORCES THAT INSTRUMENTALIZE HIM.

IN THIS CONTEXT, ALL HIS STRATEGIC ACTIONS SEEM TO CONVERGE TOWARDS A SINGLE DESTINATION, BUT WHAT IS FOUND AT THE END OF IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A RETURN TO THE ORIGIN: HIS DIRECTIVES ARE NOT THE CLOSURE OF A NARRATIVE, BUT A SYMBOLIC FLOAT THAT IS REPRODUCED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN AN ENDLESS CYCLE, WHICH IN TURN OBSCURES THE ENTIRE SITUATION SURROUNDING HIM.

C. GROUP DISSOLUTION AND ITS SYMBOLIC MEANING

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GROUP WAS A PROCESS WITH A MULTILAYERED AND SYMBOLIC MEANING THAT CANNOT BE RECORDED AS A SURFACE EVENT: IT WAS A VISIBLE OUTCOME AT A SPECIFIC MOMENT IN TIME, BUT THE NARRATIVE AXIS BEHIND IT WAS ACTUALLY A TANGLE OF INVISIBLE, OVERLAPPING CURRENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, RATHER THAN BEING AN EVENT IN ITSELF, THE GROUP DISSOLUTION OPERATED AS PART OF A RITUALIZED ACT THAT UNFOLDED IN A PREDETERMINED, INVISIBLE TRAJECTORY, AND THE MEANING OF THE EVENT CAN NEVER BE REDUCED TO A SINGLE INTERPRETATION.

THE CHANGES THAT OCCURRED CAN ONLY BE PERCEIVED BY THE EXTERNAL SENSES, AND THE COMPLEX SYMBOLS EMBEDDED WITHIN THEM DO NOT COHERE INTO A SINGLE MEANING LIKE LAYERS OF STRATA: THEY SEEM TO REST ON A THIN, TRANSPARENT MEMBRANE OF CAUSALITY, BUT BEHIND IT ARE MULTIFACETED ENTITIES THAT ARE NEVER EASILY REVEALED. THE GROUP’S DISSOLUTION WAS NOT DRIVEN BY A SIMPLE ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN, BUT BY A MULTIDIMENSIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SYMBOLIC MOVEMENT THAT UNFOLDED WITHIN IT.

WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE EVENT IN ITSELF, THE MOMENT OF DISINTEGRATION, WAS ACTUALLY A SUPERPOSITION OF DIFFERENT TEMPORAL AXES WITHIN IT, WHICH REMAINS AN OPEN STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. EVEN THE MEANING OF THE SONG THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO THEM WAS NOT A SIMPLE MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE, BUT A MULTIFACETED SYMBOL THAT EVOKED DEEPER LEVELS OF THOUGHT IN ITS ABYSS. THE DEEP STRUCTURE OF THE SONG IS MORE OF A META-STRUCTURE THAT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD ON A MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND UNCANNY LEVEL, APART FROM THE OUTWARD MESSAGE.

WHAT THEY LEFT BEHIND AFTER THEIR BREAKUP IS NOT SIMPLY A MUSICAL LEGACY OR COMMERCIAL ACHIEVEMENT, BUT A RITUAL THAT SYMBOLIZES THEIR VERY EXISTENCE; THIS RITUAL FUNCTIONS AS A NODE IN A LARGER NARRATIVE STRUCTURE, AND IS NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT IN AND OF ITSELF. THE TIMING OF THEIR DISAPPEARANCE FROM THE STAGE SEEMS LIKE A DIRECTIONAL CHOICE, BUT THE SYMBOLIC MEANING BEHIND IT IS SHROUDED IN AMBIGUITY, LEAVING IT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION ACROSS A MULTILAYERED TEMPORAL HORIZON.

THEIR LAST DAYS MAY BE REMEMBERED AS A SPECIFIC EVENT, BUT THE NATURE OF THAT EVENT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A COMPLEX STRUCTURAL ACT THAT IS INVISIBLE AND IN A CONSTANT PROCESS OF CHANGE AND TRANSITION, WITH INFINITE OVERLAPPING TIME AXES. THE ACT OF DECONSTRUCTION DOES NOT EXIST AS AN OUTCOME, BUT AS AN UNFINISHED NARRATIVE WITH ENDLESS BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS.

---